Oregon Court of Appeals

2013

January 27 summaries

A juvenile court has jurisdiction in a case on an additional allegation if there is sufficient evidence, from which a reasonable fact-finder could conclude by a preponderance of the evidence, either that a current risk of harm to the child exists from the additional allegation standing alone, or that the additional allegation contributes to or enhances the risk associated with the already established bases of jurisdiction.

To determine whether an employer is guilty of a "serious violation" under ORS 654.086(2) by means of constructive knowledge and its employee's action, the relevant inquiry is not whether an employer could have known, with reasonable diligence, of the violation, but rather should the employer have known of the violation.

Under ORS 12.135(3), an improvement to real property is considered substantially complete when the contractee has accepted the completion in writing or when a contractee has accepted construction that actually has been completed.

In a judgment award for fixtures placed by a trespassing city onto an owner's property to the owner, when the city condemns the property, the value of the improvements and fixtures must be included in the fair market value assessment of the condemnation proceeding.

A conviction under “criminally negligent homicide” encompasses the former crime of “negligent homicide” and cannot be set aside regardless of satisfaction of the other requirements for setting aside previous convictions.

An officer has reasonable suspicion to stop a person when the officer subjectively believes the person has committed a crime and that belief is objectively reasonable in the totality of the circumstances. Reasonable suspicion must be based on specific articulable facts of the crime suspected to be objectively reasonable.

Judicial review on whether there was probable cause to issue a warrant is limited to a determination of whether the issuing judge could have reasonably concluded the affidavit established probable cause, given the facts and reasonable inferences.

Under the unavoidable lull rule, it is not an unconstitutional seizure for an officer to make inquiries unrelated to a traffic stop while that officer is waiting for the results of a records check, so long as those inquiries do not unlawfully expand the stop.

Private real property that is owned by the same owner is "contiguous" for purposes of Measure 49, regardless of whether or not the lots designated for proposed development are connected by a common border. If each lot is connected by property owned by the same person, it is contiguous property.

Under ORS 813.440(1)(d) "illness" is a condition of the body or mind impeding an officer's attendance at a hearing and exhaustion can constitute "illness" where it caused the belief that he was not well enough to drive to the hearing.

An inmate is not eligible to receive "good time" credit for his first sentence, under ORS 421.120, when he is serving consecutive sentences. Also, a date set for when an inmate is eligible for parole is not a reduction of his sentence.

When a claimant, during a negotiated resolution, has agreed to a stipulated order with her employer in which she agrees to a temporary suspension of her license, misconduct has not occurred as defined by ORS 657.610(4).

Under ORS 138.580, documentation attached to a post-conviction petition are sufficient as long as they verify, corroborate, or substantiate the claims made in the petition that the petitioner aims to prove.

According to "State v. M.A.D." the determination for what is reasonable under a school-safety search depends on the nature of the safety threat. If the search is determined reasonable, then it is not a violation of a student's rights under Article 1, section 9 of the Oregon Constitution.

The doctrine of transferred intent exists for murder in Oregon despite it not having been codified in the Oregon Revised Statutes. Also, when determining the reliability of an eyewitness identification, it is proper for the Court to apply the test put forth by the Supreme Court in Lawson/James and analyze system and estimator variables.

The statutory requirement under ORS 105.620 requiring an "honest belief of actual ownership" for claims of adverse possession does not apply to parties extinguishing an easement across their land through adverse possession.

Pursuant to ORS 656.268(5)(d), an employer must respond to a request for claims closure within 10 days, and failure to respond will result in a penalty equal to 25 percent of the benefits the employee is determined to be entitled to.

February 36 summaries

Under ORS 138.580, "documentary evidence" is satisfied by an affidavit in support of a Petitioner's claim for post-conviction, and is enough evidence to support a claim for relief in Petitioner's claim for post-conviction relief.

An agreement is not fully integrated, and the parol evidence rule does not bar evidence of prior oral agreements, if the prior oral agreement is consistent with the subsequent writing and the prior oral agreement is the kind of agreement that would naturally be made separately from the writing.

Trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of defendant-attorney after he filed a motion under ORCP 47 E because the witness plaintiff planned to call had no personal knowledge of the events; therefore no genuine issue of material fact existed, and summary judgment was proper.

Under ORS 161.067(3), criminal violations involving the same conduct against the same victim will merge unless the violations can be separated by a sufficient pause in the defendant's criminal conduct that would allow an opportunity to renounce the criminal intent.

Signing a complaint as "P.E." for professional engineer, when one lacks an active license, in a complaint regarding a public body's sewer rehabilitation plans is enough to constitute a violation of Oregon's professional engineering statute, because there is no mens rea requirement in ORS 672.045.

Petitioner must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that his counsel failed to exercise reasonable professional skill and judgment, and that petitioner suffered prejudice as a result. While petitioner satisfied the first prong when his counsel failed to tell him that by stipulating to facts at trial, he could face consecutive sentences, he failed to prove that but for counsel's advice, he would not have agreed to a stipulated facts trial.

Under Section 6(6)(f) of Measure 49, a landowner is not allowed to build more home sites on her property if, at the owner's acquisition date, the zoning ordinance did not allow for the establishment of more dwellings even if a "sunset provision" was present in the zoning ordinance.

An expert witness may not testify as to the credibility of another witness. An expert may testify to matters that would assist a jury in reaching a conclusion, but may not include her own conclusions as to the witness' truthfulness.

Under ORS 419B.100(1)(c), the juvenile court has jurisdiction when conditions and circumstances are such that the welfare of the children is endangered. The trial court's decision is reviewed de novo, and is measured by the totality of the circumstances.

A person duplicates a sexually explicit image for purposes of ORS 163.684 when he or she downloads it on their personal computer. In addition, venue is proper in the county in which the download took place.

If a plaintiff engages in a settlement agreement with a defendant that includes a nonexecution covenant releasing the defendant, any assignment of rights by the defendant for claims against defendant's insurer will be subject to the Stubblefield Rule.

Under ORS 12.110, the statute of limitations does not begin to run at the time of discovery of facts that serve only as a trigger a duty to inquire about whether an injury has occurred. For a claim to relate back to the date of the original complaint, the original complaint must put the reasonable defendant on notice of such an additional basis of liability.

The evidence return provisions of the Oregon Revised Statutes require that the person the evidence is returned to be lawfully entitled to possess the evidence. Because possessing marijuana is illegal under federal law, the statute does not require it be returned to a defendant.

When applying ORS 135.747 in a motion to dismiss for lack of a speedy trial, the Court uses a two-step approach. First, the Court determines the total amount of delay and subtracts any delay caused by Defendant's application or consent. Second, the Court determines whether the remaining delay is reasonable.

Where the defendant does not raise a merger argument at the trial court, he must establish plain error that is apparent on the record and it must be such that the "legal point is obvious, not reasonably in dispute."

Violating ORS 815.020(1)(a) requires a vehicle to be so sufficiently unsafe that its occupants face a danger of probable harm or loss. A horizontal crack in defendant's windshield did not "endanger any person" under ORS 815.020 and therefore the officer's objective belief was not reasonable.

March 23 summaries

A juvenile court's order of adoption rather than reunification will be upheld where it is established on the record that DHS made a reasonable effort at reunification and that the parents will not be able to make the progress necessary in order for the child to be returned to the home in a reasonable amount of time.

Where a defendant requests counsel when being interrogated about a crime, and is interrogated by the police about a separate crime that is factually, temporally, and territorially similar, counsel must be present for both interrogations.

A defendant's appeal of supplemental judgment is timely when the 30-day appeal period under ORS 138.071(4) does not start running until actual notice of the supplemental judgment being entered has been received by the defendant or his counsel.

Pursuant to ORS 742.061 (Recovery of attorney fees in action on policy or contractors bond): Once an insured obtains recovery that exceeds the insurer's tender, the insured is entitled to recover all of its attorney fees incurred in litigating the policy, including coverage issues; the proper standard against which attorney fees are measured is "reasonableness;" the lodestar method of calculating attorney fees is a common practice and is reasonable; and, lastly, unlike the duty to defend, which is a shared obligation that arises independent of completed litigation, liability for attorney fees under ORS 742.061 is a statutory obligation that arises only after the insured prevails at trial.

An offer by the State to Defendant that it "might" impose an upward durational departure beyond the statutory maximum sentence, without mention of the specific enhancement fact, did not satisfy the notice requirements in ORS 136.765(2).

The antimerger statute does not apply to multiple counts of kidnapping where the defendant continues to substantially interfere with the victim's liberty. The kidnapping continues as long as the seizure of the victim continues.

Termination of mother's parental rights is appropriate under ORS 419B.504 when the state proves by clear and convincing evidence that the mother is unfit to provide her children with a safe home and not likely to be able to provide her children with a safe home within a reasonable time because of her own mental illness and incarceration.

When an element of a crime depends on the specific crime that a defendant intends to commit, at least 10 of the same jurors must concur on the underlying crime that the defendant intended to commit before the defendant can be convicted.

Under the doctrine of exhaustion, for an aggrieved party to exhaust its administrative remedies, an administrative remedy must be available and it must adequately serve the aggrieved party's interests.

"Use" under ORS 166.220(1)(a) includes both physical force and the threat of physical force, and a trial court does not err when it rejects a proposed jury instruction that states that "use" includes only actual force.

April 34 summaries

An ordinance must specifically seek to protect Goal 5 resources for it to be subject to the state's regulations regarding amending land-use plans. Also, when an ordinance is rejected by LUBA and a similar, but not identical one, is enacted by the local government, one challenging the ordinance has not waived any arguments or objections to the ordinance because the new challenge is a separate proceeding and not subject to waiver or preclusion.

Under ORS 161.067, the antimerger statute applies if the criminal violations were (1) completed before the next violation began, and (2) there was a significant pause between each attempt, affording the defendant the opportunity to renounce his criminal intent.

Under ORS 109.741(3), personal jurisdiction over a child is not required for a court to have jurisdiction over a matter concerning the custody of the child, including dependency jurisdiction. Under ORS 419B.100, the totality of evidence can be used to grant subject matter jurisdiction, even if every element is not met.

An employer's requirement that an employee stand on a hard floor does not significantly increase the risk of injury, and, therefore, by itself, cannot prove a causal nexus between employment conditions and injuries resulting from falling down.

A trial court's statement to counsel that there is, "no issue here as to venue," in the presence of the jury is not an abuse of discretion where the jury is otherwise instructed that venue is a material element.

An argument on appeal that is qualitatively different from the one presented at trial is not preserved for review. A denial for a motion of acquittal can be based on circumstantial evidence that allows a rational trier of fact to find the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

Under ORCP 47 E, expert testimony referred to in an affidavit may create a genuine dispute of fact, even when that information is very limited. Under ORS 12.110, the "discovery rule" applies to battery charges, beginning the two year statute of limitations from when the battery is reasonably discoverable.

In modifying a stipulated judgment of dissolution, a provision that does not contravene public policy or the law does not limit a court's ability to modify it. Additionally, a change of circumstances initiating modification can be the product of either party.

A Land Use Compatibility Statement is not a "land use decision" when it permits modification of a feature that is encompassed by a previous land use decision. Accordingly, the Land Use Board of Appeals does not have jurisdiction to review the Land Use Compatibility Statement.

An easement will be found when the agreement between the parties shows the intent to do so. An easement will be appurtenant so long as there is no contrary intent and the dominant estate is identified.

When a mental state of recklessness is required, a jury instruction laying out elements of reasonable driving is not irrelevant to the jury in determining whether a defendant disregarded reasonable risks of driving.

May 43 summaries

When considering equitable factors to determine whether a vacatur is an appropriate remedy, the factor that a party caused the mootness by their own involuntary action, such as death during an appeal, should weigh in favor of vacatur.

Administrative agency retains broad authority under ORS 757.230 in determining the formula for ratemaking based upon the effect of special contracts on private customers and may rely upon investigative reports and filings by agency staff in so doing.

Pursuant to ORS 163.425, a person commits the crime of second-degree sexual abuse when "that person subjects another person to sexual intercourse and the victim does not consent thereto." The phrase "does not consent" refers to the victim's lack of capacity to consent due to age, as well as to the lack of actual consent.

An appeal is moot when an inmate seeks habeas corpus relief, is subsequently transferred to a correctional facility out of state, and cannot demonstrate that the appeal would have a practical effect on his rights.

The Court of Appeals lacks jurisdiction to hear an appeal of a dismissal of a FAPA violation when no substantial right has been affected. An SPO may only be given if requested as a remedy in civil action, or when a person complains to a law enforcement officer and that officer gives a citation with specific notice, not sua sponte.

The "shift-to-column-I" rule is subject to Measure 11 when a Measure 11 sentence is imposed consecutively with another offense. Where a sentencing conflict between "shift-to-column-I" and Measure 11 exists, the sentence shall be the greater of the two prescribed regimes.

Pursuant to ORCP 5.45(1), for consideration on judicial review an argument must be preserved in the lower court proceedings. To properly preserve an argument for consideration upon judicial review a party must provide the trial court with a specific explanation of her objection so as to ensure that the trial court can clearly identify the alleged error.

Under ORS 419B.923(1)(a), a juvenile court has the authority to issue a “corrected permanency judgment” if the correction is for an oversight or omission. In addition, the court has authority to correct the judgement at any time.

A juvenile court may not continue wardship over a child or change the permanency plan for the child from reunification to adoption based on conditions or circumstances that are not explicitly stated or fairly implied by the jurisdictional judgment.

An issue may be considered on appeal as long as the appealing party raised the issue below with enough particularity to assure that the trial court can identify its alleged error and correct the error if it is warranted

The two year statute of limitations on a tort action against a public body contained in ORS 30.275(9) supersedes the three year limitation on a survival action for personal injuries by a personal representative contained in ORS 30.075(1).

When a physical disorder is caused by a stress-related mental disorder, the firefighters’ presumption does not apply. Stress-related physical disorders are not compensable under workers compensation claims unless heightened standards are met.

Credit for time served has no bearing on when an inmate will be released after the release date has passed. Instead, the ultimate release date is determined exclusively through the parole consideration process.

The wage earning agreement between a worker and his or her employer may be a general agreement reflecting the payment aspect of the parties employment relationship, even if that agreement contemplates that the employee will be assigned to various jobs that will involve differing pay rates and hours.

Diagnosis of a victim as sexually abused or “highly concerning for sexual abuse” requires physical evidence to support it in order to be admitted into evidence since such a diagnosis has more than a little likelihood to affect a jury’s verdict.

The Court follows a two-step process in deciding to review alleged plain error. First, if the error is unpreserved, it must be one of law, apparent or not reasonably in dispute, and appear on the face of the record. Second, the Court considers factors to decide if the error should be reviewed.

Driving away after damaging property, even for two minutes, completes the crime of failure to perform the duties of a driver when property is damaged, and a jury instruction on attempt is not warranted.

Incriminating evidence obtained against a particular defendant during a traffic stop should be suppressed if the officer's reasonable suspicion of criminal activity was not based on actions or characteristics of that defendant.

Evidence incriminating a defendant and obtained during a traffic stop should be suppressed if the officer's reasonable suspicion of criminal activity was not based on actions or characteristics of the defendant.

When an officer asks for consent to search following an illegal stop, evidence resulting from the search can be found admissible if the consent is "sufficiently attenuated" from the initial illegal stop.

An affidavit outlining elements on which an expert will testify that lacks indication that the expert will testify as to causation, absent other supporting evidence, is not sufficient to establish an issue of material fact.

A parent has an absolute duty to provide medical care to a child, and that once a reasonable person should know that there is a substantial risk that a child will die without medical care, the parent must provide that care, or allow it to be provided.

Area(s) of Law:

Criminal Law

June 22 summaries

Under ORS 238.320(1), to establish eligibility for a disability retirement allowance, a claimant must be mentally or physically incapacitated for an extended duration and thereby unable to perform any work for which qualified.

When a temporary service provider leases a worker to an employer, the temporary service provider becomes a worker leasing company responsible for providing workers' compensation coverage under ORS 656.850.

When admitting certain hearsay statements under under OEC 803(18a)(b), notice must be served that identifies the substance of the statement sought to be introduced and also identify the witness or the means by which the statement will be introduced.

The retention and processing of clothing as evidence exceeds the scope of a lawful inventory and therefore is an unlawful search and seizure. For the State to use such evidence, it must be demonstrated that the evidence would inevitably be lawfully discovered.

An individual is subject to a stop requiring reasonable suspicion when an officer asks questions about criminal activity, acquires information about the individual’s identity, and returns to his patrol car with that information.

On substantial evidence review of a final order of the Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision the Court must determine whether a reasonable person could make the findings the board made. The Board's final decision must be supported by substantial reasoning.

Under ORS 196.115(3)(d), the Court shall remand the commission's acceptance of a proposal if it is inconsistent with an agency rule, or an officially stated position or practice, unless the inconsistency is explained, or if the commission's decision is in violation of a statutory provision.

A parent has an absolute duty to provide medical care to their child, and once a reasonable person would know that there is a substantial risk that a child will die without medical care, the parent must provide medical care, or allow medical care to be administered.

All evidence that is derived from a stop, without mitigating circumstances, must be purged from the illegal stop, unless there is reasonable suspicion of criminal activity before the stop is made. Additionally, all evidence derived from an involuntary search must be suppressed if there are no intervening or mitigating circumstances present.

Under ORS 20.220(3)(a) if supplemental judgment is predicated on the underlying attorney fee award in the general judgment, the effect of reversing the general judgment is the reversal of the supplemental judgment as well.

Follow-up and clarifying questions after giving Miranda warnings are permissible only
when the invocation of the right to remain silent is equivocal. Error allowing prosecution to impeach witness is not harmless error when the defendant's credibility is vital to the defense.

If factual findings of a post-conviction court’s ruling remain unchallenged and Defendant is unable to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that defense counsel provided ineffective legal assistance, post-conviction relief will be denied.

Absent any evidence that an administrative agency intended to part with the legislature's definition of specific terms, the Court will align its decision with the traditional reading of the specific terms.

Absent any evidence that an administrative agency intended to part with the legislature's definition of specific terms, the court will align its decision with the traditional reading of the specific terms.

To change a plan from reunification to adoption at a permanency hearing, DHS has the burden of proving that (1) DHS made reasonable efforts to make it possible for the child to return home safely, and (2) that the parent had not made sufficient progress for that to occur.

When a party does not show sufficient cause to support a motion to postpone trial and a motion for self-representation would have been disruptive to the orderly conduct of the trial, those motions will be denied.

(1) A common law wrongful discharge claim should not be dismissed for adequacy of other statutory remedies if the common law claim preexisted any statutory remedy; (2) attorneys fees are not improper if they are connected to a claim of unlawful discrimination; and (3) if an evidentiary matter was improperly decided, but was not central to the case, it is a harmless error.

A substituted contract must show the intent of the parties to substitute the new promise for the original liability. Recording the agreement in court and signing a memorialization is sufficient to show such intent.

(1) Under State v. Meharry, Defendant is not required to be driving the vehicle in order for the police to "encounter" the vehicle during a warrantless search. (2) An attached trailer qualifies as a "vehicle" for the purposes of the automobile exception to the warrant requirement. (3) Under Meharry, the automobile exception to the warrant requirement permits a warrantless search of a vehicle when the police have probable cause or the vehicle is mobile at the time of the encounter.

A waiver of the right to counsel is valid when the totality of circumstances indicates that the defendant is aware of his or her right to counsel, the benefits of having counsel, and the disadvantages of self-representation.

When reviewing a juvenile court's decision under ORS 419B.100(1)(c), the court:
(1) assumes the juvenile court's findings of historical fact are correct if there is any evidence in the record to support them;
(2) assumes that, if the juvenile court is silent on an issue of material fact, the issue is resolved in a manner consistent with the juvenile court's decision;
(3) combines (1) and (2) along with non-speculative inferences to determine if ORS 419B.100(1)(c) was satisfied.

Under ORS 166.450, the phrase "presumptive evidence" is not that same as a rebuttable presumption, and does not shift the burden of proof to the Defendant. Additionally, reasonable suspicion is determined at the time the traffic stop is improperly extended, and does not include factors that arise after the unlawful extension.

Per OAR 213-012-0040(2), when a defendant is serving multiple terms of probationary supervision and commits one probation violation, the court can revoke and impose only concurrent sentences and not consecutive sentences.

Expert testimony of a scientific nature is so inherently persuasive that not only must an expert's credentials be testified to a jury, but a foundation must be built showing their methodology is scientifically valid.

Under OEC 404(3), "other crimes" evidence cannot be used when the prior crime is insufficiently similar to the acts involved in the charged offenses, or when attempting to use one victim's state of mind to prove another's.

Under OEC 609, record of a previous judgment is considered public record for purposes of impeachment against an adverse witness when it can be established that the judgment is part of an actual public record.

A "combined condition" is compensable only if the otherwise compensable injury is the major contributing cause of the combined condition disability or the major contributing cause of the need for treatment of the combined condition as compared to the contributions from the preexisting conditions.

For unemployment insurance tax purposes, administrative rule OAR 471-031-0181 provides that, whether an individual maintains control over the ‘means and manner’ of performance determines whether that individual is either an employee or an independent contractor

Juvenile jurisdiction over a child may be established when the court has sufficient evidence linking past conditions or circumstances endangering the welfare of the child to a current threat of harm to the child.

Parent who fails to meet obligations under an action agreement due to brevity of incarceration allows a court to conclude that parent has not made sufficient progress under ORS 419B.476(2) when reunification would not occur for a minimum of nine months.

Under the Indian Child Welfare Act the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the factual basis for terminating parental rights. Additionally, under ORS 419.504, the State must demonstrate the parent's conduct and environmental conditions are seriously detrimental to the child, and will not be resolved within a reasonable period of time.

A mental commitment order cannot be based on speculation that a person cannot care for their own personal needs, and that a person's needs can be met through their own resources or through the help of another.

Discovery of an outstanding warrant for a defendant's arrest purges the taint of prior unlawful police conduct that might otherwise require suppression of evidence obtained as a result of an arrest on the warrant.

Reasonable suspicion must be evaluated based on the information that is available to the officer under the circumstances in which the decision must be made. Reasonable suspicion does not require that the facts as observed by the officer conclusively indicate illegal activity, only that those facts support the reasonable inference of illegal activity by that person.

More than one person can be found guilty of “frequenting” in violation of ORS 167.222(1) when there are joint owners or occupiers in a home as long as they knowingly possess the controlled substance. Having another person jointly occupying the home without reasonably knowing of the controlled substance is not enough evidence to convict the Defendant of “frequenting” within the meaning of the statute.

Under OEC 404(3), in sexual abuse cases a defendant's history of sexual wrongs, crimes, or acts is inadmissible character evidence unless the evidence is logically relevant to the defendant's specific intent of the alleged wrongdoing.

A ruling or decision that has been made in a particular case is binding on a second appeal. It can only be reviewed as a matter of law if the judgment conflicts or was contrary to the ruling or decision.

Subsistence and travel pay that are combined with an employee's wages and are paid in addition to regular hourly wages in a singular paycheck will not be treated as reimbursements and will be due as a part of the worker's disability benefits.

An injured worker's "attending physician" is not the only medical provider who can provide medical services to the injured worker. However, only the "attending physician" may authorize the payment of temporary total disability compensation to the injured worker.

An injured worker's "attending physician" is not the only medical provider who can provide medical services to the injured worker. However, only the "attending physician" may authorize the payment of temporary total disability compensation to the injured worker.

(1) Elements under wrongful initiation of a civil proceeding are not identical to those necessary for proving enhanced prevailing party fees under ORS 20.190, thus issue preclusion does not apply; (2) a party's reliance upon his or her attorney's advice, and the reasonableness of such reliance after a full and frank disclosure of pertinent facts, are all issues of fact to be determined by a jury; and (3) an attorney's malice requires a purpose other than recovery of damages, which is a question of law.

Under ORS 163.575(1)(b), when a person in possession of controlled substances knowingly permits minors to remain in a place where unlawful activity involving controlled substances is maintained that person may be convicted of endangering the welfare of a minor.

In order for hearsay statements to be admitted under OEC 803(18a)(b), a notice of intent must adequately identify the substance of the evidence introduced and the witness or the method by which the statements will be introduced.

Under OEC 404(1), a defendant may introduce evidence of victim's character and victim's prior violent acts against defendant when asserting the affirmative defense of self-defense, and when character is an essential element of the charge, claim or defense.

Intent to commit a crime therein does not suffice for a burglary charge under ORS 164.215, if the intent is formed while merely remaining on the premises, when the accused had knowledge that they were not originally authorized to enter onto the premises.

Area(s) of Law:

Juvenile Law

September 21 summaries

To receive unemployment benefits, the "good cause" standard is determined as whether a reasonable person would have considered the circumstances to be sufficiently grave that he or she had no alternative but to resign.

Factors indicating that an employer is only in direction and control of a desired result over its workers, rather than authority to control the way that work is performed by the workers, favors a finding that the workers are independent contractors.

Once a court's child-custody determination has been memorialized in a dissolution judgment, the presumption in ORS 109.119 that the legal parent acts in the best interest of the child would have no effect in any subsequent modifications under ORS 107.135 which requires there to be a substantial change in circumstances before a court can consider whether to modify custody.

Claim preclusion applies where the facts that entitled the plaintiff to relief in the first action are the same in the second action, and are of such a nature that they could have been joined in the first action.

The “crowd management exemption” under ORS 181.871(2), which permits limited use of unlicensed security personnel at events involving liquor, applies only to “organized events,” and the discretion to define the terms of that statute rests with the Oregon Liquor Control Commission.

Leaving the supervision of an unarmed civilian not on the premises of a correctional facility is not escape in the second or third degree and instead constitutes unauthorized departure under ORS 162.175.

A spouse seeking support bears the burden of showing that the earning capacity of the other spouse exceeds their actual income and can only be sustained by non-speculative evidence based on present earning capacity.

OAR 436-009-0040(1) sets a maximum for fees paid for medical services of injured workers, and is not intended to prevent parties from agreeing on a lower rate than would normally be paid under the fee schedule.

Under ORS 419B.100(1)(c), a juvenile court has jurisdiction of a child whose condition or circumstances, under the totality of the circumstances, are such that there is a reasonable likelihood that the welfare of the child is endangered.

When an inmate, whose dangerousness is based on a disability, is found to be a danger to the community, 42 USC §§ 12101-12213, the Americans with Disabilities Act and ORS 659A.142 will not limit the Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision's ability to defer the inmates release.

Relief cannot be granted for a claim that is not alleged in the petition and not litigated by the post-conviction court. Petitioner does not need to show evidence of prejudice if the trial court fails to give a proper concurrence instruction.

A police officer, who has an objectively reasonable belief that an animal has suffered, or will imminently suffer a serious physical injury or death, is justified in conducting a search or seizure without a warrant to provide immediate aid or assistance.

A search occurs when officers interfere with a person’s protected privacy interest. To argue “inevitable discovery,” police must prove that they would have obtained disputed evidence through lawful procedures.

Area(s) of Law:

Criminal Procedure

October 46 summaries

ORS 137.123(1) provides that a sentence imposed by the court may be made concurrent or consecutive to any other sentence, subject to various specific limitations. There is nothing in the language of that statute that limits the court in the exercise of its discretion from imposing partially consecutive sentences and concurrent sentences.

A plain, white envelope does not intrinsically suggest that it contains contraband, and therefore the plain-view doctrine requirement that in item's incriminating character be immediately apparent is not met.

The exclusive remedy provision of the Workers' Compensation Law is unconstitutional as applied to a worker left with no process through which to seek redress for an injury for which a cause of action exists at common law.

Personal jurisdiction is established if a person purposefully directs his activities at a given state, the action “arises out of” the activities directed at the state, and the person can reasonably foresee being haled into the courts of that state. Under ORCP 23 A, a plaintiff has an opportunity to amend his complaint once before the trial court can dismiss it with prejudice.

In review of a judgment of acquittal, when the court is asked to determine whether evidence was presented to the jury from which the jury could find the defendant guilty, the Court must read the jury instructions as the jury might reasonably have understood them.

Evidence of prior bad acts can only be used to prove intent under OEC 404(3) where the defendant admits committing the actus reus or the judge instructs the jury that it must first find the defendant committed the actus reus before using prior bad acts to determine intent

Under Article I, section 11 and Article VII (Amended), section 9 of the Oregon Constitution, it is proper for the trial court to empanel a six-person jury for a defendant’s misdemeanor case, and that jury’s verdict is valid.

Plaintiff need not exhaust all administrative remedies when a party is not challenging an agency process or its outcome, nor does the primary jurisdiction doctrine apply when there is no basis for resolution of an administrative issue under the administrative construct, intended only to be applicable to an different stage of contest.

A defendant cannot be convicted of escape from a correctional facility under ORS 162.155 when he or she is authorized to depart from the jail and is not under the supervision of a law enforcement official when he or she absconds from a work site.

Under OEC 404(3), evidence of a prior criminal conviction used to prove the intent element of a crime, when the defendant denies the act took place, requires a jury instruction limiting them to first find the defendant committed the act before considering the prior conviction for intent.

To prove that a defendant "hindered" a report under ORS 165.572, the state must establish that the defendant's actions made it slow or difficult for another person to make a report. That requires proof of some discernible interruption or delay in the making of a report above the de minimis level.

The limited scope of review under ORS 183.400 does not allow the Court to review such rule challenges to determine whether the rules find adequate evidentiary support in the rulemaking record therefore both of the Oregon Department of Corrections rules, OAR 291-131-0035(1)(a)(D) and OAR 291-131-0025(11)(b)(D), are held valid.

Under ORS 419B.476, there is no requirement that the juvenile court consider whether a child can be safely returned to the parent within a reasonable time, before changing a permanency plan from reunification to adoption.

For ORS 419B.100(c) to apply, the State must show sufficient evidence of the type, degree and duration of any psychological or emotional damage that would justify juvenile court jurisdiction over the child.

To survive a Motion for Summary Judgment, a responding attorney's affidavit that uses future expert testimony to satisfy a prima facie claim must state genuine issues of material fact that address any affirmative defenses raised by the opposition.

When prosecutors mention rape laws of the Middle East during voir dire in a case where the defendant is a Muslim from the Middle East, the court must grant a curative instruction to ensure the jury does not impermissible consider race and religion during deliberations.

In issuing a warrant, the magistrate could reasonably conclude that the totality of the facts set out in the affidavit, separate from the informant's allegations, sufficiently corroborated the anonymous informant's statements.

Under ORS 162.315, it must be shown that an individual intended to resist arrest in order to satisfy the elements of the offense. Additionally, in order to form the required intent the person must know they are being arrested.

Material variance between pleadings and proof does not exist when a rational trier of fact could conclude, based on credible testimony and reasonable inferences, that a defendant committed the alleged crime.

Summary judgment is appropriate if there is no genuine issue of material fact for trial and the moving party is entitled to prevail as a matter of law. There is no genuine issue of material fact if, based on the summary judgment record no objectively reasonable juror could return a verdict for the adverse party on the matter that is the subject of the motion for summary judgment.

Common-law rules regarding payments from debtor to creditor apply in the domestic relations context. A debtor, making a payment to a creditor with multiple claims, may designate application of his payment as long as the debtor manifests his intent as to where the particular payment is to be applied at or before the time of payment.

It is an abuse of discretion for a trial court to disregard the terms of a marital settlement agreement due to allegedly inequitable conduct by one of the parties, where the parties considered and structured the agreement around such conduct. Additionally, a party that sings a marital settlement agreement purporting to resolve all claims between the parties waives its right to continue discovery under ORS 107.105(1)(f).

Under ORS 161.067, the court must merge two convictions when a defendant's acts constitute the same conduct or criminal episode, violate two or more statutory provisions, and all elements of one offense are necessarily included in the commission of the other offense.

Under ORS 135.747, an argument that a certain amount of delay is attributable to the State and is reasonable will fail if more time is attributable to the State and no argument has been made that it is also reasonable delay.

Under ORS 161.067(1), when the same conduct or criminal episode violates two or more statutory provisions and each provision requires proof of an element that the others do not, there are as many separately punishable offenses as there are separate statutory violations.

For purposes of OAR 213-008-0002(1)(b)(G), a "victim" is a person who is directly, immediately, and exclusively injured by the commission of the crime--not a person injured only by subsequent, additional criminal conduct.

Under ORS 31.555, the Dougherty Rule does not apply in a party's favor for partial satisfaction when that same party has objected to the use of a segregated verdict form, which allows for distinguishing between the various types of economic and non-economic damages at issue in the case.

The interpretation of an express easement is a question of law to be decided by the courts. In construing an easement, a court's task is to discern the nature and scope of the easement's purpose and to give effect to that purpose in a practical manner.

To grant an action for declaratory judgment, the complaint must state a justiciable controversy. A justiciable controversy must include present facts, not an issue based on future events, and must result in specific relief through a binding decree, not a non-binding advisory opinion.

Under Article I, Section 9 of the Oregon Constitution, to have probable cause in a traffic stop, the officer must (1) subjectively believe a violation has occurred, and (2) that belief must be objectively reasonable under the circumstances.

A trial decision that alters a defendant’s criminal history determination, but does not alter the sentence received, is justiciable as a defendant’s only avenue for challenging a criminal history determination. Under ORS 131.505(4), a series of crimes may constitute a single criminal objective if separated by only a short period of time.

Under ORS 137.106(1)(a) when a person is convicted of a crime and the victim suffered economic damages as a result of that crime, the court may order the defendant to “pay the victim restitution in a specific amount that equals the full amount of the victim’s economic damages”. Further, market value is the correct measure for determining retail value and restitution.

The proper timing for a defendant’s challenge to venue is before trial through a pretrial objection because it (1) protects defendants from potential undue hardship and unfairness of standing trial in a distant venue and (2) precludes defendants from waiting until trial to raise the issue of venue, thus creating a need for a new trial or implicating double jeopardy.

A burglary conviction can be based on disobeying a peace officer's order only if the original order, the unlawful entry, and the intent to refuse to obey that order all take place as part of a single continuous criminal episode.

A drug treatment program that was mandated by a governmental actor in order to avoid adverse, judicially imposed consequences is sufficiently similar to a DUII diversion program and can preclude the participant from being awarded DUII diversion.

A judgment for conviction notwithstanding an erroneous admission of evidence will be affirmed if there is little likelihood that the admission of the evidence affected the verdict. The court will consider the nature of the erroneously admitted evidence in the context of other evidence on the same issue.

To preserve an argument, the party must explain the objection to the trial court specific enough to ensure that the court can identify an alleged error, consider the error, and correct the error if warranted.

A person who suffers physical and mental harm, is manipulated, and whose short-term and long-term vulnerability to harm is increased meets the definition of a “vulnerable victim” under OAR 213-008-0002(1)(b)(B).

The State has the burden to show that a warrant obtained after an illegal search is untainted by the original search. Additionally, a person is not required to assert a privacy interest in their cell phone to receive Article I Section 9 protections.

Under Oregon's anti-SLAPP statutory scheme, as provided under ORS 31.150, a plaintiff need not show "likelihood of success of the merits," but instead, present "substantial evidence to support a prima facie case."

When reviewing spousal support amounts in settlement agreements not incorporated into a stipulated judgment courts should consider whether the agreement is just and equitable not whether it violates public policy.

ORS 419B.875(2) provides in part that the rights of the parties include, but are not limited to the right to call witnesses, cross-examine witnesses and participate in hearings. A party’s right to participate includes the right to testify on the party’s own behalf.

A history of anger management and substance abuse problems, coupled with failure to attend court-ordered therapy, constituted sufficient evidence to show a parent was unfit and their child could not be integrated into that parent's home within a reasonable time.

In a wrongful discharge claim, an employee’s claim cannot be considered untimely where a genuine dispute regarding the date an employee leaves employment exists, because a wrongful discharge claim does not accrue until the employee leaves the employment.

To determine whether a sentence would shock the moral sense for purposes of Oregon's proportionality clause: "(1) a comparison of the severity of the penalty and the gravity of the crime; (2) a comparison of the penalties imposed for other, related crimes; and (3) the criminal history of the defendant."

Upon review of a judgment of acquittal, the court looks at the facts, in a light most favorable to the respondent, to determines if any reasonable trier of facts could find that the essential elements were proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

December 44 summaries

If an issue was not raised before the post-conviction court it cannot be considered on appeal. In addition it is sufficient to establish prejudice in the context of post-conviction relief if there is uncertainty regarding what elements were agreed to and use by the jury.

A jury instruction based on diminished value must only be given when evidence in the record allows a jury to reach a conclusion as to the diminished value, and an indemnity clause that offends ORS 30.140(1) because it requires a subcontractor to indemnify a contractor for the contractor's own negligence remains enforceable to the extent that it also requires the subcontractor to indemnify the contractor for the subcontractor's negligence.

Both the temporary, OAR 436-009-0040 (07/07/08), and permanent, OAR 436-009-0040(1), rules permit the enforcement of fee discount contracts because they only set an upper limit on fees for medical services.

If, in a civil dispute, upon viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the plaintiff a fact finder could reasonably determine evidence provides grounds for enforcing plaintiff's claims, then granting a defendant's motion for summary judgment on those claims is an error by the trial court.

Under ORCP 21 A(9), a motion to dismiss on the ground that it was untimely under the statute of limitations for professional negligence cannot be granted if the jury could find that plaintiff did not know critical facts until less than two years before filing her action.

Under ORS 537.230(2) the measuring point for determining the portion of a permit that is "undeveloped" for purposes of ORS 537.230(2)c, and the "maximum rate diverted for beneficial use before the extension" for the purposes of ORS 537.230(2)b, is the expiration of the development deadline in the permit or last-issued extension.

An ordinance in Lincoln County, LCC 1.1375(2)(m), which requires a landowner to obtain a conditional use permit prior to opening a "firearms training facility," is not preempted by ORS 166.170, ORS 166.171, or ORS 166.176.

ORS 419B.476(2)(a) requires that the juvenile court determine whether DHS has made reasonable efforts and whether the parent has made sufficient progress to make it possible for the ward to return safely home.

Under ORS 701.140, “improper work” can be characterized as work not suited to the circumstances under which it was performed. To recover economic damages in negligence, the “economic loss” doctrine requires the existence of a heightened standard of care, such as one arising out of special relationship or statute.

When a trial court properly grants a motion to continue under ORS 135.763(2), after the district attorney receives notice from Defendant requesting a speedy trial under ORS 135.760 to 135.765, the trial court is not required to dismiss the case if time lapsed is greater than 90 days.

Under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, it is an error of law to admit evidence against a defendant when the defendant does not have an opportunity to confront the evidence presented against her.

When a defendant is sentenced to and agrees to community service, then that defendant is not also subject to a work crew unless specified by the judgment. The standard of review is the same as that of reviewing a judgment of acquittal.

The Department of Human Services has the burden of showing, by the preponderance of the evidence, that the conditions that were originally found to endanger the child persist to a degree that they currently pose a threat of either serious loss or injury that is reasonably likely to be realized.

As stated in Strawn v. Farmers Ins. Co., a plaintiff needs to show "the defendant made a material misrepresentation that was false; the defendant did so knowing that the representation was false; the defendant intended the plaintiff to rely on the misrepresentation; the plaintiff justifiably relied on the misrepresentation; and the plaintiff was damaged as a result of that reliance,"; not that there was a "meeting of the minds."

In a Workers' Compensation action, the reviewing Court will not reweigh the evidence or choose sides among members of the board who initially reviewed the claim. A reversal of the board's decision will only occur when the credible evidence apparently weighs overwhelmingly in favor of one finding and the board finds the other without giving a persuasive explanation.

The Criminal Law Revision Commission intended ORS 161.485(2) to prevent multiple convictions for attempt, solicitation, and conspiracy on the basis of a defendant's single course of conduct, as opposed to preventing multiple convictions for multiple instances of one or another of the inchoate crimes.

An exception to OEC 504(2), ORS 419B.040(1) allows for the admissibility of therapists testimony, as long as the testimony references only exculpatory or inculpatory information regarding the abuse of the child in the case being decided.

An individual suspected of DUII has only the right to a reasonable opportunity to contact an attorney, not the right to have an attorney present; therefore, the presence of an attorney as a condition to submitting to a breath test constitutes a refusal.

Generally, a party is entitled to have a proposed jury instruction given if the instruction properly states the law applicable. However, a trial court does not err in declining to give a correct instruction that is fully covered by the trial courts other instructions.

A good faith answer to employment related questions that proves to be false is not knowingly misrepresenting facts under ORS 183.650(4). While a writing directly related to professional duties made while off duty does violate professional standards, a writing that is a private expression of opinion does not.

Modification of spousal support award is warranted upon spouse's remarriage if the remarriage constitutes a substantial, unanticipated change in economic circumstances. Continuation of maintenance support award may be appropriate if the remarriage does not address or fully satisfy the purposes of the original spousal support award.